Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is a good point. The Republicans apparently learned something from the Obama campaigns about ground games though. The Koch Btrs redirecting much of their funding to ground games in Florida Governor's race and the North Carolina Senate race apparently made the difference. And, you have to think - no proof, just a gut feel - that Scott Walker's organization has one hell of a ground game.
Reince Preibus seems to be quietly, steadily transforming the Republican campaign efforts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
There are 34 seats up in 2016, 24 of them currently held by Republuicans. Combine that with the hiugher turnout in a Presidential Election...
That is a good point. The Republicans apparently learned something aobut ground games though, from the Obama campaigns. The Koch Btrs redirecting much of their funding to ground games in Flordia governor's race and the North Carolina Senate race apparently made the difference. And, you have to think - no proof, just a gut feel - that Scott Walker's organization has one hell of a ground game.
Reince Preibus seems to be quietly, steadily transforming the Republican campaign efforts.
Walker's organization does have one hell of a ground game, but keep in mind they already had a great ground game as the recall effort shows. That advantage however didn't hold on the Presidential level. Obama won re-election in Wisconsin by a larger amount than any of Walker's victories.
In NC & Florida it is hard to say how much of the Koch's effort in the ground game paid off, or if it had more to do with the Democrats not being able to replicate their ground game in Presidential elections over to Midterms.
2016 may be bad math for Republicans, but 2018 is even worse for Democrats. There are hardly any Republicans up then. After huge wins in 2000, 2006, and a modest won in 2012, it is the biggest class of democrat senators.
2016 may be bad math for Republicans, but 2018 is even worse for Democrats. There are hardly any Republicans up then. After huge wins in 2000, 2006, and a modest won in 2012, it is the biggest class of democrat senators.
I started a thread on the other page about this. We could see several wave Senate Elections in a row based off how many seats are up
No Dem will win in a Southern state outside Va or NC in a Presidential election year and no R will win Wisconsin, Minnesota or Illinois during a Presidential year.
If I remember correctly, Norm Coleman and Al Franken were embattled in a tight Senate race in 2008 that took like 4 recounts. And that was a state that Obama won by 11 points.
In general, incumbents are hard to beat, even if they are not of the prevailing party for the Presidential election winner from that state. Not impossible, but there is an advantage there.
Looking at the 2016 map, Democrats have the best shots in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Illinois for pickups. For the Republicans, I would say their best chances of pickups would be Nevada and Colorado - and that depends on the national mood and the candidate pool running for President. There is a wild card on the Hispanic vote, who are not enamored with the Democrats and Obama right now and aren't exactly running to the Republicans either. But, things could change in the next two years. Who knows.
To add even more to that, Democrats typically have turnout advantages in Presidential elections, GOP tends to have the turnout advantages in Midterms.
I keep seeing that there appears to be a preconceived idea that all of those that did not vote in the midterms will fall to the democrats in the presidential election. There is no evidence backing this up and it totally discounts that the voters have the capability of making up there own minds.
Lets see what the Republicans do performance wise before just automatically giving that 2/3s that did not vote this time will go democratic. Not a foregone conclusion, except in the mind of obamaphobes.
I keep seeing that there appears to be a preconceived idea that all of those that did not vote in the midterms will fall to the democrats in the presidential election. There is no evidence backing this up and it totally discounts that the voters have the capability of making up there own minds.
Lets see what the Republicans do performance wise before just automatically giving that 2/3s that did not vote this time will go democratic. Not a foregone conclusion, except in the mind of obamaphobes.
I don't think anyone is saying a forgone conclusion. What is being said is Democrats have a built in advantage in Presidential races with turnout, the GOP has the built in advantage in Midterms.
In 2012 naby Republicans doubted the Democrats advantage in 2008 would be there again and thought it was going to be isolated to 2008, they were wrong.
Likewise this year many Democrats thought the GOP turnout advantage from 2010 was an isolated event and wouldn't happen again, they were wrong.
Granted it isn't always the case. The GOP had a turnout advantage in 2004, the Democrats did in 2006.
With that being said in the type of cycle that typically favors the Dems the GOP will be defending far more seats, and in the type of cycle that typically favors the GOP, the Dems will be defending far more seats.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
